RED Changes the Game – Again

[Paul Sumi]

If you had a choice between two good-enoughs, then the cheaper would always win. To tell you the truth, if I owned a newspaper, the guys would be going out with G10s. PJ stuff gets trashed...

Off-topic, but I read on sportsshooter.com (primarily a PJ site) that some papers were giving their reporters G9s for assignments not requiring a dedicated photographer.  The photo and video capabilities were sufficient for newsprint and Internet use.

OTOH, I could see an organization like Getty having a few RED Scarlets for special projects...

Paul

[BruceHouston]

My son works in the movie industry (rigging, lighting, some camera work) and has had the opportunity to work with and around some RED cameras.  One thing he's mentioned a couple of times is the size of the files and the amount of processing power required to get the most of what RED can offer.  FWIW...

Mike.

I see this as a big problem.  As to the massive amount of data generated:

(1) Where are you going to store it?

(2) How much time will it take to transfer it?

(3) But, most importantly, it is easy to say "frame-grabs."  But how does any pro photographer other than a large-staff commercial studio sift through thousands or tens of thousands of frames, even if you manage to store--transfer--store that massive amount of data?

Example:  (5 minutes of video) x (60 seconds/minute) x (30 fps) = 9,000 frames.

I can appreciate how it is handy to be able to shoot stills and video with a single camera, such as the 5DII.  However, with all due respect to Michael, I am not sure that I buy into the idea of merging these two worlds vis a vis the "frame-grab" part of the convergence concept.  In other words, I catch the vision of hardware convergence but not of shooting or processing convergence.

Bruce

[Wayne Fox]

Red has created a modular system. They, unlike DSLR manufactuers have given their customers an ongoing product upgrade path without making their whole rig obsolete. That is clever.

Guess I'm missing something ... I'm sure the "body" is the major expense ... it's not like you can swap out the sensor.  I can't see this upgrade path is any more beneficial than buying a new dSLR body.  It appears the main difference is the viewfinder isn't part of the body.

To me what has rewritten the rules here is the amazing RAW capture frame rates.  While not for everybody, it is amazing technology, and I can see some real world applications even in still photography.

[NikosR]

Red has created a modular system. They, unlike DSLR manufactuers have given their customers an ongoing product upgrade path without making their whole rig obsolete. That is clever.

Modularity is in principle a good thing. However, if the cost of replacing a non-modular system with a new one is comparable to upgrading a module of the modular system then modularity looses much of its attraction. So, everything is related to cost.

Another thing. We ask the dSLR manufacturers to produce weather / dust / moisture sealed bodies and systems. How does a modular system like RED's fair with regards to this requirement?

[Jim Pascoe]

I was under the impression that this Red, would challenge the high end Canon or Nikon's. I was obviously wrong on that one. I based that on the huge buzz about the 5d Mk II. I didn't expect a budget DSLR from them! Obviously ;-)

True, it's not aimed at me, but then it's not aimed at 98% of the rest of the photography market either. So it's appeal will be very limited to specialist shooters, not your average working photographer. Hence, I would suggest, for most, it's a bit of a let down really.

In truth, a lot of the gear discussed in these forums is not aimed at 98% of the photography market either.  Red is pushing the technology
forward in a way that a lot of us do not yet see the need for.  But think back to the introduction of auto-exposure and auto-focus.  Many
photographers claimed these features were unnecessary at the time.

I see the point about Red is not that tens of thousands of people will rush out to buy one, but that it shows that shooting in raw at a high frame
rate is quite feasible. When I bought my 1DS last year, I joked to my wife that my next high-end camera will shoot short clips of video and
we will extract the stills from that.  60% of our work is weddings and very short clips would be all that is needed.  This would get around the
problem of storage capacity somewhat.  Personally I want to get four years out of my current camera, and then we will see what is about!

[smthopr]

The geek in me is fascinated by the RED DMSC, but other than that, I still don't see what all the fuss is about. It's more expensive than the competition at every MP point, and much larger and heavier than the competition. Yes, it has movie mode, but by the time they finally deliver the DMSC, all the current big DSLR players will also have pro bodies with video. Maybe not video as good as provided by the RED camera, but certainly good enough for all but the highest end video producer. Really, how many stills photographers need better video than what they can get with the 5DII, or with what's coming in the near future.

Bottom line, the DMSC seems overpriced and overhyped. A niche product.

I look at the Red cameras as moving picture cameras more than still picture cameras.  It's a different market really than still cameras.

One can't really shoot stills and movies at the same time as stills really require a shorter shutter speed than movies, though it's possible to pull a still from a movie if one gets lucky finding a good pose when nothing is moving.

Of more concern to me, as a cinematographer, is the RAW workflow.  One advantage of digital capture over film capture for motion pictures is the ability to preview the image live on the set.  Sure, those used to shooting film are used to pre-visualizing and color correcting in post ("the film RAW workflow"), but I, for one, find it exciting to see a good facsimile of the image on a properly calibrated monitor, ideally corrected through a LUT to resemble the final image.  A RAW workflow that requires post production RAW development kind of negates this advantage. And there's always the fear that producers will save money by using a quicky HD downconversion used for editing as the final product. I'd sure feel more comfortable knowing that editorial will be using a version that somewhat resembles the intent of the cinematographer.  When this happens it's good for the cinematographer as producers and studios will be proud of the look of the movie and the work of the cinematographer.  It's also very confidence building for the movie director to see an exciting looking image on the monitor live as we shoot.

For other types of cinematography, such as nature documentaries, there is a certain appeal to the RAW workflow and a single camera that can shoot stills as well as movies. And maybe even for photojournalists as well.

So, I think there really is a market for these cameras, it just may not be the tool for the typical landscape photographer.

And lastly, I sure hope that RED can overcome the "rolling shutter" in the CMOS Red One camera with these new models. It's usually not visible, but when it is, it's a little bothersome. Or maybe we'll all just get used to this "effect" as the look of movies.

[jani]

I see this as a big problem.  As to the massive amount of data generated:

(1) Where are you going to store it?

You store it in a storage system.

If you're a large movie studio, you can probably afford to throw a million dollars at a heavy duty storage system, and another million dollars at a backup system.

(2) How much time will it take to transfer it?

Yep, that's probably a bother, but it might still be easier than digitizing chemical film footage.

(3) But, most importantly, it is easy to say "frame-grabs."  But how does any pro photographer other than a large-staff commercial studio sift through thousands or tens of thousands of frames, even if you manage to store--transfer--store that massive amount of data?

 

We're talking movies here.

You watch the movie, you select a few time sequences where you think you might find the relevant stills to extract, and then you narrow it down from there.

Spin the wheel forward and backward to see which frame to grab, and save the one or two that does it for you.

Basically, you - and many others in this forum - are viewing this from the wrong side; from the still photographer's closed universe.

Turn it around, and consider it from a movie production point of view:

You get a fully digital workflow, from recording to the movie theatre.

George Lucas took advantage of this for "Attack of the Clones" and "Revenge of the Sith", as the first major movie director in history.

And yes, Sony, Panasonic et al probably feel the pressure.

[PierreVandevenne]

And yes, Sony, Panasonic et al probably feel the pressure.

At least, card reader manufactuers won't feel it: an $500 card reader leaves room for competition...

http://www.red.com/accessories/digital_storage/

[jani]

At least, card reader manufactuers won't feel it: an $500 card reader leaves room for competition...

http://www.red.com/accessories/digital_storage/

Well, now you're assuming that the RED system will be an open specification, ready for third party implementations.

Given the price, I suspect it won't be.

Given the prices for their memory cards, I suspect that even the CF/CF+ cards won't be using a standard format, either.

Vendor lock-in is such a sweet game, and remember: this is the creator of Oakley glasses we're talking about here. He knows that an exclusive feeling does sell.

[Graeme Nattress]

The CF cards are very fast. They're not proprietary format, but they are tested to ensure they work at the very high data rates we put them to. The 16GB card is the fastest there is. The CF Module is not a card reader for your computer. For that, you just use any you want. I think the one I use cost me $30. The CF Module is for the RED One camera to allow it to record to CF card, and again it's designed for speed over and above the ordinary.

As for the storage, we're currently recording about just over 4 minutes of 4k 24fps onto an 8GB card. That's about 6500 frames. That does take a bit of hard drive space to store, but it's not that hard by any means.

Graeme

[PierreVandevenne]

The CF cards are very fast. They're not proprietary format, but they are tested to ensure they work at the very high data rates we put them to. The 16GB card is the fastest there is. The CF Module is not a card reader for your computer. For that, you just use any you want. I think the one I use cost me $30. The CF Module is for the RED One camera to allow it to record to CF card, and again it's designed for speed over and above the ordinary.

As for the storage, we're currently recording about just over 4 minutes of 4k 24fps onto an 8GB card. That's about 6500 frames. That does take a bit of hard drive space to store, but it's not that hard by any means.

Graeme

Filling an 8GB card in just over 4 minutes, let's say 250-255 seconds, amounts to an effective transfer rate around 32MB/sec. I agree that given the state of the technology, this isn't too hard to achieve. Delkin and Lexar, for example, claim an effective transfer rate of 45MB/sec in their UDMA cards and $80-$90 cars readers.

http://www.delkin.com/products/connect/readers/reader39.html
http://store.lexar.com/?category=22&su...uctid=RW034-001

One cand understand that a bit of glue logic, some buffering to be on the safe side, proprietary gold plated interconnect and a dose of good karma could, maybe, double the price. But $500? Any detailed tech specs available?

 

[jani]

The CF cards are very fast. They're not proprietary format, but they are tested to ensure they work at the very high data rates we put them to. The 16GB card is the fastest there is.

Just out of curiosity, have you e.g. tested the Lexar 300x cards?

[NikosR]

According to this http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/camera_mu...p?cid=6007-9255 the D3 achieves almost 30MB/sec on the fastest of UDMA cards. I hope for Nikon's sake that the CF writing module in the D3 costs them much much less than $500  

[Graeme Nattress]

Manufacturers claim specs on CF cards. So we test them all. Our cards work at the speeds they need to, others do not. (or else we'd not have had to get our own 16GB cards made to our specs).

Graeme

[Graeme Nattress]

BTW, we just dropped the price on the 8GB cards...

Graeme